Phosphite: What companies aren't telling you

Once someone calls me a "fuck*ing idiot" many times in one post, and attacks me personally in other manners, and the mods don't edit it, and I don't get an apology. And once someone makes claims they can't back up with proof, only conjecture and assumption and hearsay, that goes counter to proven scientific theory (i.e. as close to fact as science comes) over the past 70-80 years of research, I fell OK about indirectly referencing that person in my sig, esp. because I didn't name the person (and because that person that can lead other growers down the wrong path with good sounding, but flawed arguments).

This thread isn't about that person, please don't try to turn it into it. I explained to him many times why he probably didn't see a drop in P from petiole tests, and why his tests were probably flawed, but he kept ignoring my posts and then claimed I didn't explain it to him. That is all I have to say about that...

I am calling Nurti-Phite and Pure Flowers and Humbolt Ferts tomorrow to get their stance and to set them straight. I read the Nutri-Phite site, but not fully, I will do so today, so I will know what they are trying to claim. It seems they are trying to claim Phi is some kind of slow-release Pi source, and if so, that isn't accurate.

Like I wrote, Phi can be a (poor) SAR (Systemic Acquired Resistance) inducer, and when a plant has its' SAR induced the plant can grow faster, more robust and better deal with stresses; and like I wrote Phi mainly is a fungicide. That's the story of Phi...that and it's a very poor source for P.

If a mod asks me to remove the reference to him form my sig I will comply. I would also remove the reference to him from my sig if he apologizes and accepts that his is wrong when he claims Phi is a good source of P. By making those silly claims he is leading some growers to believe they can use Phi in place of/or in conjunction with Pi for P. He is doing a major disservice to growers by making the claims he makes. Mostly he is referenced in my sig so other growers don't get taken in by the BS.

The simple fact is: applying Phi to fertigation water or as foliar is a fail for P. Simply applying Pi for P is a much more intelligent, less expensive and more effective and efficient choice for P. Not only that, but Phi can damage plant tissue even in low concentrations, esp. if the plant tissue is low on P (e.g. Pi) in the first place.

@ organicsquarll:

OK, I thought about it for a minute, and I see your point. I will remove the reference to him in my sig for the sake of preventing what I am sure will be more sh*t talking by he-who-is-to-be-unnamed. I don't want this thread to be locked, and it might be if he-who-is-to-be-unnamed doesn't get his way, he will probably start more name calling and get this thread locked.

What is a better SAR inducer?

Chitosan is good, but IMO the best is methylated jasmonic acid because it is not only a good SAR inducer, but exogenous application (ex. via. foliar) increases glandular trichcome density (# of trich per X leaf area) and trich number. Methylated jasomic acid is naturally produced in plants and they use it, along with GA3 (and other chemicals), to form trichs.

If a plant is lacking methylated jasmonic acid it won't form trichs, this has been proven with mutants that lack MJA, and by application of chems that block production of MJA in non-mutants, and by application of MJA to non-mutants.

Keep this thread on track. If it goes the same direction the other one did the concerned parties will receive time out.




V

spurr said:

...

I am calling Nurti-Phite and Pure Flowers and Humbolt Ferts tomorrow to get their stance and to set them straight. I read the Nutri-Phite site, but not fully, I will do so today, so I will know what they are trying to claim. It seems they are trying to claim Phi is some kind of slow-release Pi source, and if so, that isn't accurate.

....

Click to expand...

What was the result of the telephone call?

What is the difference between phosphite, phosphate and phosphorous? And which is more commonly found in nature?
Going of this information you posted I gather that staying away from these phosphites is a safe thing to do. What is this phosphite labeled as?

Different oxidation states, and phosphite + phosphate are P bonded to 3 and 4 O, respectively. Doesn't matter what's found more commonly in nature, what matters is which form plants prefer and benefit from.

Spurr had some nice sources posted before (previous version of this thread), methinks. If memory serves me correctly, phosphate is what plants prefer to eat as their P source and phosphite is good for the short term (inhibits phosphate uptake after awhile). Phosphite is also a good mold/fungi deterrent. But grapeman's real world experience gives a lot of credit to phosphites.

I personally use both in my grows (Thanks grapeman and krunchbubble!). They each have their purpose. You could use one or the other, really--my 0.02

Tonka said:

What was the result of the telephone call?

Click to expand...

It was a nice talk, I am emailing their PhD plant physiologist tomorrow.

The claims made on the NurtiPhite website are a bit misleading, so I wanted to make sure they were not trying to claim something that is untrue.

I mentioned how plants can not use Phi (phosphites) as a direct P source, how Phi must be oxidized into Pi first, and then Pi (phosphates) provides P to the plant. The salespersons I spoke with agreed, and I'm glad he did, otherwise he would be full of BS.

It's just like I write lots of times over: using Phi for P is silly when we can simply use Pi.

When I brought up P (as Pi) concentration in plant sap analysis after foliar application of Phi the salesperson verified that the increase in P is not from Phi directly. He claimed, and I will get published papers on this tomorrow I hope, foliar application of Phi increases some organic acid root exudates (I assume he was referring to citric acid, etc), and those exudates increase P (as phosphate) uptake in the rhizosphere. He claimed increased P uptake via. roots due to Phi foliar application can begin as fast as a couple of hours after application. That makes sense because foliar application of lots of PGRs, kelp, etc., increases root exudation of various substances in a short time frame.

I have written about citric acid root exudates, and other organic acid root exudates, and their beneficial effect upon P uptake by roots, and mineralization of P from organic matter, here in the past. It's a well known phenomenon.

When I brought up the issue of plants being unable to oxidize Phi to Pi if Phi is inside plant issue (which means Phi doesn't provide P to the plant once it's inside the tissue), he mentioned the ongoing debate in academia of wither or not plants can, in fact, oxidize Phi into Pi. I then mentioned how in various studies radioactive labeled Phi, when taken into plant tissue, remained as Phi even a year after application; thus showing that Phi isn't converted into Pi inside plant tissue. I also mentioned that there is no known plant enzyme that can convert Phi into Pi. To both of my points he conceded. We both agreed that the jury is still out, but nearly all evidence points to plants inability to convert Phi into Pi.

I also mentioned how soil application of Phi takes a while to provide P (via. oxidation of Phi in Pi by microbes), and he agreed. He did mention that due to stabilization of Phi from NutirPhite, with "organic acids" (that I assume is citric acid, and suggested as much, with him not telling me I was wrong) the oxidation of Phi into Pi can be sped up if the soil pH is 8-9. He mentioned some citrus crops were the soil had high pH, the high pH sped up oxidation of Phi into Pi a good deal.

He also mentioned that "non-stabilized" (I assume he means non-chelated) forms of Phi (ex. from Pure Flowers) can see as much as a 30% reduction in conversion of Phi into Pi due insolubility at higher soil pH; also when soil is cool/cold. That makes sense, because Pi and Phi are like many micronutrients, in that they start to become insoluble (i.e. non-plant available) once pH is > 7-7.5 and/or is soil is cool. FWIW, that is why I chelate Pi with citric acid...

I will write more once I email with their PhD plant physiologist on the topics I listed. I am especially interested in studies looking at root exudates after foliar application of Phi, and any studies showing plants can oxidize Phi into Pi. However, on the topic of plants oxidizing Phi into Phi, he agreed there is scant (if any) evidence it can happen...

I brought up the issue of Phi being a SAR inducer for some crops, and that is why some crops have increased yield and stress resistance from Phi. He agreed that is a main benefit of Phi; even though Phi is a rather poor SAR inducer (he didn't have a comment when I mentioned it was a poor SAR inducer).

He mentioned that Phi is a "fungistat" (i.e. doesn't directly inhibit fungi, but stops fungi from reproducing), and I said it was a "fungicide" (directly inhibits fungi). He again said Phi doesn't inhibit fungi, and I told him that it does, and it even inhibits AM fungi from forming beneficial mycorrhiza with host plant roots.

The most important take away from our 15 minute talk, is that Phi does not provide P nutrition to the plant directly, even if foliar applied. We both agreed on that, sorry grapeman, but that's a fact. And that for Phi to provide P to the plant, it MUST first be oxidized into Pi. And that there is no proof a plant can oxidize Phi into Pi once Phi is inside plant tissue...

So, nothing I wrote is incorrect, nothign I claimed is incorrect. And the claims made by the salesperson I spoke with were pretty much correct. Caveat is about our disagreement of fungistat vs. fungicide and that he thinks plants might be able to oxidize Phi into Pi. I was happy to have spoken to him, we had a nice and fruitful talk.

What I found interesting was that he mentioned how much flack the NutriPhite company got from academia when they first started marketing Phi as a "fertilizer". He also told me Phi is a fertilizer and I told him "no it is not"; we agreed to disagree about that.

Thus, my point still stands, using Phi (like NutriPhite or Pure Flowers) as as P source is a fail when we can simply use Pi.

Raingrow Bloom-A-Long Liquid Concentrate 10.6oz




For brilliant blooms and robust transplants, raingrow's bloom-a-long 0-12-0 liquid bone meal truly fits the bill. Unlike granular bone meal which takes months to break down bloom-a-long's unique formulation gives plants immediate access to its phosphorus, a key ingredient in the establishment of root development and prolific blooms.

raphenilweed said:

What is the difference between phosphite, phosphate and phosphorous? And which is more commonly found in nature?
Going of this information you posted I gather that staying away from these phosphites is a safe thing to do. What is this phosphite labeled as?

Click to expand...

Phosphate (Pi) is the ionic form of phosphorous (P). Phosphite (Phi) is an analog of Pi, and for Phi to provide P to a plant it must first be oxidized into Pi, then the Pi provided P to the plant. And the conversion from Phi into Pi is a slow and inefficient process if microbially driven (by bacterial oxidation); if oxidation of Phi into Pi is pH driven it's faster but no cannabis growers use a pH of 8-9; so pH oxidation is a moot point.

In nature, Pi is the main source of P. Phi does exist in nature IIRC, but it's only rarely found and in very small quantities. Plants do not use Phi for P in nature, they use Pi for P; and/or "Dissolved Organic Phosphorous" for P, aka "DOP".

Yes, stay away from Phi. The labeling of Phi depends upon what US state you live in. Some states allow it to be called a fertilizer (even though it isn't one), but most states do not allow it to be called a fertilizer (because it isn't a fertilizer). In the EU I do not think it can be called a fertilizer but I'm not sure about that.

For a P source, stick with phosphates (Pi), not phosphite (Phi) because if a plant is only provided Phi it will become VERY phosphorous deficient quickly. This has been proven many times, Phi is not a good source of P.

B. Friendly said:

Raingrow Bloom-A-Long Liquid Concentrate 10.6oz




For brilliant blooms and robust transplants, raingrow's bloom-a-long 0-12-0 liquid bone meal truly fits the bill. Unlike granular bone meal which takes months to break down bloom-a-long's unique formulation gives plants immediate access to its phosphorus, a key ingredient in the establishment of root development and prolific blooms.

Click to expand...

What does that have to due with the thread topic? You seem to post very off topic messages in my threads for some reason. Another example is when you wrote about N and P in the PGRs thread...

wow great read. thanks

No problem, glad you liked it

spurr said:

Phosphate (Pi) is the ionic form of phosphorous (P). Phosphite (Phi) is an analog of Pi, and for Phi to provide P to a plant it must first be oxidized into Pi, then the Pi provided P to the plant. And the conversion from Phi into Pi is a slow and inefficient process if microbially driven (by bacterial oxidation); if oxidation of Phi into Pi is pH driven it's faster but no cannabis growers use a pH of 8-9; so pH oxidation is a moot point.

In nature, Pi is the main source of P. Phi does exist in nature IIRC, but it's only rarely found and in very small quantities. Plants do not use Phi for P in nature, they use Pi for P; and/or "Dissolved Organic Phosphorous" for P, aka "DOP".

Yes, stay away from Phi. The labeling of Phi depends upon what US state you live in. Some states allow it to be called a fertilizer (even though it isn't one), but most states do not allow it to be called a fertilizer (because it isn't a fertilizer). In the EU I do not think it can be called a fertilizer but I'm not sure about that.

For a P source, stick with phosphates (Pi), not phosphite (Phi) because if a plant is only provided Phi it will become VERY phosphorous deficient quickly. This has been proven many times, Phi is not a good source of P.

Click to expand...

Phosphite, an Analog of Phosphate, Suppresses the Coordinated Expression of Genes under Phosphate Starvation1

Deepa K. Varadarajan, Athikkattuvalasu S. Karthikeyan, Paino Durzo Matilda, and Kashchandra G. Raghothama* Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-1165






Phosphate (Pi) and its analog phosphite (Phi) are acquired by plants via Pi transporters. Although the uptake and mobility of Phi and Pi are similar, there is no evidence suggesting that plants can utilize Phi as a sole source of phosphorus. Phi is also known to interfere with many of the Pi starvation responses in plants and yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae). In this study, effects of Phi on plant growth and coordinated expression of genes induced by Pi starvation were analyzed. Phi suppressed many of the Pi starvation responses that are commonly observed in plants. Enhanced root growth and root to shoot ratio, a hallmark of Pi stress response, was strongly inhibited by Phi. The negative effects of Phi were not obvious in plants supplemented with Pi. The expression of Pi starvation-induced genes such as LePT1, LePT2, AtPT1, and AtPT2 (high-affinity Pi transporters); LePS2 (a novel acid phosphatase); LePS3 and TPSI1 (novel genes); and PAP1 (purple acid phosphatase) was suppressed by Phi in plants and cell cultures. Expression of luciferase reporter gene driven by the Pi starvation-induced AtPT2 promoter was also suppressed by Phi. These analyses showed that suppression of Pi starvation-induced genes is an early response to addition of Phi. These data also provide evidence that Phi interferes with gene expression at the level of transcription. Synchronized suppression of multiple Pi starvation-induced genes by Phi points to its action on the early molecular events, probably signal transduction, in Pi starvation response.

Click to expand...

1 This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (grant no. 590 1165-2614 to K.G.R.). This is journal paper no. 16,793 of the Purdue University Agriculture Research Program. * Corresponding author; e-mail ragu@hort.purdue.edu; fax 765-494-0391. © 2002 American Society of Plant Physiologists


spurr take into consideration that I am new at this view.

But reading into this a bit more I found this.

So, my understanding is that if we (the organic growers) that have a `Living Soil` this product that the others are talking about .......is totally useless? It does follow my opinion of ALL bottled products sold on the market today. Useless.

Do I understand this correctly spurr?

V

vonforne said:

spurr take into consideration that I am new at this view.

But reading into this a bit more I found this.

So, my understanding is that if we (the organic growers) that have a `Living Soil` this product that the others are talking about .......is totally useless? It does follow my opinion of ALL bottled products sold on the market today. Useless.

Do I understand this correctly spurr?

V

Click to expand...

Hey bro,

Well, if using living soil like adding ACT to media with high humus and organic matter content, then Phi would probably be oxidized into Pi faster than if Phi was applied to media such as coco if using conventional ferts. So, I wouldn't say Phi is totally useless with living soil, but I do think there is zero reason to use it for P with living soil (either of foliar or soil drench).

Cannabis needs little P in the first place (comparatively to other elements like N or K or Ca), and with addition of organic matter (OM) like soft rock phosphate (SRF) or various meals or fish hydrolysate, we can provide sufficient P to the plant without need of inorganic substances like Pi (phosphates) or Phi (phosphites). This is doubly true if we add citric acid to assist in the mineralization of Pi from OM like SRF, and to assist in chelation of mineralized Pi.

Phi could offer some benefit to plants in living soil if it's foliar applied in terms of being a SAR inducer, but it's a rather poor SAR inducer AFAIU. Also, Phi is a fungicide (or a fungistat depending upon who you talk to), thus Phi can/does hinder both harmful and beneficial fungi, which is bad for living soil (in terms of beneficial fungi). And of special note is that Phi stops AM fungi from forming mycorrhiza with host roots.

So, Phi isn't totally useless in living soil, but it shouldn't be used in living soil, ever, IMO.

spurr said:

Hey bro,

This is doubly true if we add citric acid to assit in the mineralization of Phi from OM like SRF, and to assist in chelation of mineralized Pi.

Click to expand...

LOL, that was my next question. I have been reading VG´s thread on Citric acid. I have been using Apple Cider to adjust my water PH. Here in Germany we sit on top of a Lime mountain. I have good results with the Cider but if I could improve P uptake with the citric acid then I think it is time to switch.

Would the powdered type from the Bio Markt work?

V